The Supreme Court, on December 10, quashed a Section 498A IPC (cruelty) case filed against a husband and his in-laws, reiterating concerns over the tendency to implicate the entire family of the husband in cases stemming from matrimonial disputes.
The Court also condemned the increasing misuse of provisions like Section 498A IPC as a means of pursuing personal vendettas against the husband and his family.
Last month, the Court also urged judicial bodies to exercise caution in ensuring that distant relatives of a husband are not unjustly implicated in criminal cases initiated by a wife alleging domestic cruelty.
A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and N. Kotiswar Singh observed that Section 498-A IPC has increasingly been misused as a legal tool by wives or their relatives to settle personal scores with the husband and his family. This misuse undermines the true intent of the provision, which was introduced to address genuine cases of cruelty against women and to enable prompt state intervention.
“The inclusion of Section 498A of the IPC by way of an amendment was intended to curb cruelty inflicted on a woman by her husband and his family, ensuring swift intervention by the State. However, in recent years, as there have been a notable rise in matrimonial disputes across the country, accompanied by growing discord and tension within the institution of marriage, consequently, there has been a growing tendency to misuse provisions like Section 498A of the IPC as a tool for unleashing personal vendetta against the husband and his family by a wife.
Making vague and generalised allegations during matrimonial conflicts, if not scrutinized, will lead to the misuse of legal processes and an encouragement for use of arm twisting tactics by a wife and/or her family.
Sometimes, recourse is taken to invoke Section 498A of the IPC against the husband and his family in order to seek compliance with the unreasonable demands of a wife. Consequently, this Court has, time and again, cautioned against prosecuting the husband and his family in the absence of a clear prima facie case against them.”, the judgment authored by Justice Nagarathna said.
The Court considered a criminal appeal filed by the husband and his in-laws challenging the Telangana High Court’s decision to deny quashing a domestic cruelty case filed against them by the wife.
The wife had lodged the case after the husband initiated proceedings for the dissolution of their marriage.
Criticizing such actions, the Court noted that Section 498-A IPC was intended to protect wives subjected to cruelty in their matrimonial homes, particularly due to unlawful demands for property or dowry. However, in this instance, the complainant-wife had misused the provision as a retaliatory measure against the husband’s petition for divorce.
We are not, for a moment, stating that any woman who has suffered cruelty in terms of what has been contemplated under Section 498A of the IPC should remain silent and forbear herself from making a complaint or initiating any criminal proceeding.
That is not the intention of our aforesaid observations but we should not encourage a case like as in the present one, where as a counterblast to the petition for dissolution of marriage sought by the first appellant-husband of the second respondent herein, a complaint under Section 498A of the IPC is lodged by the latter.
In fact, the insertion of the said provision is meant mainly for the protection of a woman who is subjected to cruelty in the matrimonial home primarily due to an unlawful demand for any property or valuable security in the form of dowry. However, sometimes it is misused as in the present case.”, the court observed.
The Court ruled that the High Court had erred significantly by refusing to quash the FIR against the appellants. Consequently, the pending case against them was dismissed, and the appeal was upheld.